Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/10/11/15:35:45
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Peter Buckley wrote:
>
>>I hope that Bob can read this message to the list,
>>if not, Chuck I hope will forward it to him.
>>
>>My company ships some cygwin stuff, and most recently
>>we shipped a product containing some mixed executables and
>>cygwin1.dll and cygwinb19.dll. It didn't have any problems
>>because the names of the dlls were different.
>
>
>sort of. The mount table entries are stored under the Cygnus Solutions
>key in the registry -- and both DLL's will look there for the
>information. So if the two "installations" require different mount
>tables, you could see conflict -- except that B19 stored the mount table
>undera slightly different subkey than 1.3.3 uses. So, you might *not*
>see a conflict. However, this is a non-solution: relying on a quirk in
>registry names that just-so-happens to distinguish between B19 and 1.3.3
>is not a long term solution.
>
>OTOH, should we really bother to support old dists?
Absolutely not.
>Isn't that their responsibility?
Absolutely, yes.
>(BTW, I assume there ARE distributing the source code for their cygwin
>and linked applications, right?
I certainly hope so. Possibly they've bought a license from Red Hat or
Cygnus but I don't recall ever hearing that they had.
Can anyone confirm if this is the case or if I need to contact some
Red Hat lawyers?
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -